BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Jess Whittlestone

Jess Whittlestone contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Survey of the Potential Long-term Impacts of AI

It is increasingly recognised that advances in artificial intelligence could have large and long-lasting impacts on society. However, what form those impacts will take, just how large and long-lasting they will be, and whether they will ultimately be positive or negative for humanity, is far from clear. Based on surveying literature on the societal impacts of AI, we identify and discuss five potential long-term impacts of AI: how AI could lead to long-term changes in science, cooperation, power, epistemics, and values. We review the state of existing research in each of these areas and highlight priority questions for future research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

AI Challenges for Society and Ethics

Artificial intelligence is already being applied in and impacting many important sectors in society, including healthcare, finance, and policing. These applications will increase as AI capabilities continue to progress, which has the potential to be highly beneficial for society, or to cause serious harm. The role of AI governance is ultimately to take practical steps to mitigate this risk of harm while enabling the benefits of innovation in AI. This requires answering challenging empirical questions about current and potential risks and benefits of AI: assessing impacts that are often widely distributed and indirect, and making predictions about a highly uncertain future. It also requires thinking through the normative question of what beneficial use of AI in society looks like, which is equally challenging. Though different groups may agree on high-level principles that uses of AI should respect (e.g., privacy, fairness, and autonomy), challenges arise when putting these principles into practice. For example, it is straightforward to say that AI systems must protect individual privacy, but there is presumably some amount or type of privacy that most people would be willing to give up to develop life-saving medical treatments. Despite these challenges, research can and has made progress on these questions. The aim of this chapter will be to give readers an understanding of this progress, and of the challenges that remain.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Beyond Near- and Long-Term: Towards a Clearer Account of Research Priorities in AI Ethics and Society

One way of carving up the broad "AI ethics and society" research space that has emerged in recent years is to distinguish between "near-term" and "long-term" research. While such ways of breaking down the research space can be useful, we put forward several concerns about the near/long-term distinction gaining too much prominence in how research questions and priorities are framed. We highlight some ambiguities and inconsistencies in how the distinction is used, and argue that while there are differing priorities within this broad research community, these differences are not well-captured by the near/long-term distinction. We unpack the near/long-term distinction into four different dimensions, and propose some ways that researchers can communicate more clearly about their work and priorities using these dimensions. We suggest that moving towards a more nuanced conversation about research priorities can help establish new opportunities for collaboration, aid the development of more consistent and coherent research agendas, and enable identification of previously neglected research areas.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The tension between openness and prudence in AI research

This paper explores the tension between openness and prudence in AI research, evident in two core principles of the Montréal Declaration for Responsible AI. While the AI community has strong norms around open sharing of research, concerns about the potential harms arising from misuse of research are growing, prompting some to consider whether the field of AI needs to reconsider publication norms. We discuss how different beliefs and values can lead to differing perspectives on how the AI community should manage this tension, and explore implications for what responsible publication norms in AI research might look like in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access